The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-01-22


But it seems to me, that we should have
something more than seeming inference
as to what may be. l have no doubt
that sin has its better side; and that
the bene6cent consequences of sin so to
speak, will extend into another world,
in much the same way that the conduct
of Joseph's brethren in selling Joseph
into Egypt, has extended down to our
own time, and may extend forever since
we are being exercised here for our
hereafter advantage, and not for our
disadvantage. The school of life is not
appointed by God for our destruction,
but for our salvation.
am presuming that my definition of
Universalism is the same as yours,
'the final restoration" Tor salvation) ''of
the whole family of mankind to holiness
and happiness" as the profession of
belief has it. 1t is not that the conse-
quences of sin in this life, do or do not
extend into the next. Nor that they
do, or do not continue for millions of
years. believe they do; and that that
man is Universalist no less who takes
the one, or the other side of these ques-
lions, provided they are not eternal
consequences. Many think that better
definition of the profession would have
been, to interpolate the word ''conse-
quent" before happiness. And how
about this Is happiness consequence
of holiness in any such sense as the es-
Enlistment of a natural connection
between them? The third article of
the profession declares that holiness
and true happiness are inseparably con-
nected," and so, if heaven be holy
place, or condition, must it not also be
truly happy condition.
But it should be said that analogy is
no real proof of anything. 1t is merely
similarity of relations and principles.
Something we don't know, we think is
like something we do know. 1t strongly
resembles it, and therefore it is not I'M
reasonable, or unlikely that it shall be.
But that thing is not unreasonable,
or unlikely, is no positive evidence of
its existence. And why then throw
aside the Scriptures and attempt to set
tie tn thing by analogy, as though the
next world must needs be patterned ex-
actly after this in all things. The
Fathers were not afraid to quote Script
ure, nor to rest their views upon right
Interpretation of it. 1 confess l should
be pleased if our attention might be
called more frequently to some unqual-
fled teaching from the same source.
notice the remark of yours, that if
the Scriptures do not declare future
punishment or the future evil conse-
quences of sin specifically, they never
theless do declare it on broad general
principles, and we are to infer it from
their teaching, just as we infer that ''if
we sin to-day we shall be punished to-
morrow" though the Scriptures no.
where say it. Is this partial acknowl-
edgment that the Scriptures afford no
specific teaching of the kind? am sure
for myself that they do not.
Suppose now we try to come to some
correct definition of sin. 1t is well to
understand that no one can commit sin,
without voluntarily willing, or consent
ing to it. And so sin has to be defined
as something more than the mere viola
tion of established law; or the infringe
ment of the moral government of God.
1t is an Intentional, criminal, or wicked
act a conscious violation of the sim
ner's understanding of what is right and
just. A child may break laws before
it knows how to keep its fingers out of
the fire, but no sin is involved in such
case. One definition of sin is, that it is
''the transgression of the law" Sin
does transgress law, but all transgres-
sion of law is not sin. A very loose
definition is, "that all unrighteousness is
sin )" but the only strict definition is
that of James $40 him that knoweth
to do good, and doeth it not, THAT is,
wilfully) to him, it is SIM"
And now as to the punishment of sin
let me say, that all effects, or evil con-
sequences of sin, are not punishment.
Regret may be one of these evil conse-
quences; but it is not of the nature of
punishment, and ought not to be ranked
as such for we may most deeply re-
greet a thousand things which are merely
accidental, or perhaps providential, as
well as regret sin. We may regret a
thing to-day, and till we come to see
that there is more good than evil in it
which is the case with everything that
God ordains.
DR.. Emerson's illustration in the
--latest Word of Universalism, makes
the distinction here sufficiently plain,
in showing the difference between con-
sequences, and what ne calls sequences;
the kind of results which are liable to
happen, and the natural, inevitable eff
fects of wicked intent. He puts it in
this way: 1.-The story goes, that black
smith was moment behind the time
of his promise in shOeing a horse. 1t
thence followed that messenger rid
ing upon the horse was a moment late